Java is popufur and therefore automatically bad with turbospergs who have committed to a lifelong servitutde of le using le shit …. SOFTWARE!!!!!!!!!!!
Anyway, anything that worko-s ain't ever gonna be "good" according to some
wwwwwwww eeeeeeeeeeee hhhhhhhhhhhh aaaaaaaaaaa
mega autism hyper super bombadier extra megasperg who …….. EEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!
cuts to car wreck footage
Name:
Anonymous2016-01-06 21:01
Java is excellent for GUI programming, databases, conventional business applications, and the like, but I find it rather weak for AI which has distorted my perception of it somewhat. Data-driven programming for example is a great basic AI technique and Java doesn't support it directly. I am not trying to be mean just trying to promote high standards.
Name:
Anonymous2016-01-06 21:02
There is no such thing as a perfect language but when it comes to most conventional applications Java is pretty well-rounded. But don't try to do advanced AI stuff with it because it is not well-suited. This is why we need a variety of different languages and not a monoculture that thinks it can solve everything with objects.
>>5 I like Java because of "write once, run everywhere". I like Java because the syntax is designed to fit on one page. I like Java because OOP paradigm makes it easy to decompose and bundle concerns into discrete objects.
Name:
Anonymous2016-01-07 8:27
>>9 Java is designed to let shitty fungible corporate cog knobs write software while caged in a crib, as to hopefully not break too many things.
>>10 That's the point of corporate programming! I deliver the work we promise according to the schedule and specification. Code that's properly fungible is maintainable code.
>>11 If I wanted metaprogramming, I'd use a Lisp of some sort.
Name:
Anonymous2016-01-07 13:20
>>13 Not code that's fungible, but programmers that are fungible. IOW, the shittiest, stupidest, ignorant fucks possible.
Java is the Nerf of programming languages, during the war of development.
Name:
Anonymous2016-01-07 13:50
>>13 Metaprogramming is a must-have in any language.
Name:
Anonymous2016-01-07 14:11
>>15 Plenty of languages are successful without macros/eval/runtime polymorphism. Its not a clear-cut advantage.
Name:
Anonymous2016-01-07 14:31
>>16 Successful among whom? Cubicle curry-negroes with the intelligence of a cow whose idea of code generation is to copy and paste text?
Name:
Anonymous2016-01-07 17:42
>>10-17 That ``fungible cogs'' meme is pretty worn out. Every Lisp ``programmer'' sounds exactly the same. They use the same tired memes: blub, fungible, macros, Lisp machines, blah blah blah. If anyone is fungible, it's Lisp ``programmers.'' Have they made a single working program? All I see is barely started useless junk on Github. Are they even programmers? They sound more like programmed bloggers. Robots saying the same thing while pretending to be different.
Also if you want an interesting piece of Lisp software which is sophisticated, useful for practical purposes, and actively maintained by open-source programmers, consider Maxima.
Sure you can write shitty code like a pig import every JDK1.1 library from 90’s and leave all the optimalisation on Java Heap, but then please don’t be angry on Java but be angry to yourself because you are shitty coder and you didn’t try.